Denis Kazlowski wrote:Another question when both the PL and EF 4.6k URSA's were on sale for $8000 on the website next to the 4K you own. Did anyone order any? If so, did those orders get cancelled?

I read through 470+ pages of this section but did not see anyone nagging BM to ship their pre-ordered 4.6k URSA units, unlike other product launches? I may have missed some and unfortunately doing '-mini' in google still Yields results for URSA minis. See pic. It had "Buy Now" buttons.

It’s important for people to know their rights and retailers should just offer refunds on requests based on basic consumer protection laws. Australia has particularly stringent consumer laws, and New York and California at least in the US seem to have strong ones. I’ve never understood why people don’t exercise these consumer rights and want to encourage people to do so. A product has been sold that can not do what was advertised - that should be instant refund, no need for lawyers.

Each individual or company should do whatever they deem necessary. My statement was to the effect of posting 'potential action' on a forum would hinder that process, nobody here to my knowledge is equipped to give unsolicited legal advice, and generally causes a endless discussion and copy-paste regulations and other unreal things. I'm sure anyone whom sued or been sued by anyone you'd know how messy it can all get. - Now engaging government bodies of variable states again has it's problems. Ranting into a forum of I'm going to sue and call the AG or the FTC is not actually doing any of those things, it's threatening to do them and announcing. Any council will tell you after the fact that you should not have done that.

This may not entirely be a theoretical discussion because, as you have said, cases are usually settled on an individual basis.

For this forum it is, as we will never know the outcomes, these settle with a stip. on non-disclosure.

Now I would be very interested in broken down URSA bodies to play around with, though I’m more interested in the FGPA than the turent these days, and I’d actually like hook up the screen to another camera :p

If you know how. I've spent decades in various disciplines, sometimes it's not easy to get components that don't cost an arm and a leg.

Depends on jurisdiction, but by most definitions it is a consumer product and is/was easily purchasable by general consumers. Often it’s defined by dollar value and the URSA is cheaper than all of household appliances. I can tell for a fact it is covered by Australian consumer law (which has blanket coverage on goods and services priced less than $40k) plus “A person is still defined as a "consumer" if the good was acquired for purposes of re-supply or for the purpose of using or transforming it in trade or commerce”

Dear god, I am doing this.... This was not a breach of contract. BM did not breach a contract with the user to supply them a 4.6k turret. Now to raise any other legal action you need to show actual damages arising from not being supplied the damn thing, negligence, ill will, plaintiffs and defendants consistent behavior, prior requests to be made whole and the like.

I just think it's bad form (the soup I am in now myself) to post public adverts of theoretical legal problems in a given jurisdiction to a company. Further having a fruitless discussion - which will just yield more such discussions.

It works like this, if in theory BM get's fined by the FTC or NY AG $50,000 for not making the damn Turret available for sale, Show me the URSA owner that will be happy and made whole with this? For them it will be cost of doing business, for the URSA owner it will be the same 4K Turret.

This venue here is probably the worst venue to discuss this kind of stuff!

Conflating the moral hazard with liability is silly. I know people are mad about this. But all this is definitely reaching, and if it's not reaching then people would know better to do this on the D/L.

Well, first of all, I don't know if my post qualified as a rant, but that is a matter of opinion. We are due a refund, if we want it. That would require you giving up your camera and accessories purchased for operation of that camera. That is what I'm pursuing at this point and the reason for posting on the forum is to let everyone know that this is an option to pursue. People can continue to keep their head in the sand for another two and a half years, but that sounds more than unreasonable for me. I bought the URSA because of a particular feature and it is why I bought this camera. It is why many people bought a camera from a relatively new company. They offered a feature no other company offered, they announced that the feature had come to fruition, they provided a ship date and pre-orders, they provided sample video of the feature being used... (and this is not up for argument, this is a fact)

It is up to the individual to do what they will with the information I provided. And to be clear, I have been down this road before with another company. They advertised a camera feature that the camera didn't have. It took me a couple of months of back and forth (I can't provide particulars because I signed a non-disclosure). But it cost me nothing in the end, and the company, a much larger one than Blackmagic with unbelievable legal resources, had to buy back all my equipment.

I, personally, needed to invest the money I spent elsewhere and I did. I invested in a camera that had the feature.

And I was very public with the above process until I signed the non-disclosure. Now, I have said this before, but I will not sign a non-disclosure again. And yes, I understand this may mean I get nothing, but it will be the only way I can look at myself in the mirror. I was very disappointed in myself when I dealt with this before. I understood and was happy that my problem was resolved and I was rid of a company, a company much different from Blackmagic Design, that didn't value customer satisfaction at all. But I knew, because I was told, that other customers had the same problem I did without resolution. I knew this because an employee told me that they were aware of the problem and told me the details. That employee asked if I wanted a refund, and I said, "Yes". I never heard from that employee again, and the company denied the conversation even happened. But I had a recording of the conversation. But this had/has nothing to do with Blackmagic Design and I'm only mentioning it to say that I've been down this road, and I am not going to sign a non-disclosure. The non-disclosure left a bad taste in my mouth. I think it's a little naive on my part, but it felt like I wasn't taking other customers into consideration who had the same problem.

Every owner needs to be aware of the options available to them so they can make an educated decision on how to move forward. That decision may be to wait and see. That decision may be to seek legal action. That decision may be to be happy with what they have. That is everyone's personal decision to make. My decision is my decision. I have spoken to Blackmagic Design and they were well aware of my decision long before I posted my decision on the forum. We discussed it, and I agreed to wait and to be patient. I agreed to "wait and see". I waited, and there has been one "communication" since then.

The lack of communication is unacceptable. The over two years since the announcement is unacceptable.

And please understand that I love Blackmagic Design as a company and as a leader in the community for independent filmmakers. I love that they provide products that no one else if offering. I don't want any harm to come to Blackmagic Design, and I mean that. I have been using Davinci Resolve as my only editor since the first version 12. And that hasn't been easy. The program is still going through growing pains, but I am sticking with it and growing with it. I am being patient because I believe in the product and because they constantly updating the product and they are constantly in communication with me about how and when a problem will be solved. When there is a feature that is not working and I inform them of the problem, they get back to me, and begin to work on the problem. Can they fix it immediately? No, but they communicate they are working to resolve the problem and the problems are resolved in a timely manner.

I have a best friend, Duaine. I love him like a brother. He is the Godfather to my children. He was the best man in my wedding. He took care of me when my father passed away. But if Duaine sold me a car that had a certain feature, and that feature didn't work, I would return the car and he would have to refund my money. Period. It's not rocket science, but I'm not here to argue the validity of this. I was just providing my viewpoint and my course of action.

I was just providing my viewpoint and my course of action.Do with it what you will.

Going to the NY AG will not get you anywhere happy as BM Proper is a foreign company, BM USA is in California, not in NY. Posting other supporting evidence in public domain only ruins your ability to take any other action. BM's layers will print them and argue against you using your own words - So posting more about what you personally decided to do only will harm you down the line, the only way it would help in a very remote possibility is if you were the 'Class' representative inside a class action - if granted standing - and those take years.

The other assumption you're making is that every URSA 4k owner is in the USA or even in the same state as you and that they are so dim to the matter at hand that they need consumer protection education. I think everyone here works or worked 'gigs', they at one point or another did have trouble getting their invoices paid, got sold a bill of materials, someone possibly took action, are either self proprietor, indy contractor or corporation etc..

The 4.6K URSA and 4.6 Turret and test footage and marketing of the 4K camera is moral hazard at best - it cannot be interpreted to be 'fraud', 'swindle', 'breach of contract' and the like.

So in order to initiate any action you would have to be able to demonstrate actual harm and real damages for failure to provide an upgrade to 4.6k. If there had been a contract between you and BM that said, by buying this camera we promise that we'll upgrade you to 4.6k by date X, then I'd see 'standing'. Otherwise the net result, if any from NY AG would be a big parking ticket to BM from New York State and you'd still be without a turret.

So the functional equivalent of what you were proposing to do, earlier is... If your friend Duane sold you a car without a CD player upgrade to it, is to call the police on Duane, have Duane arrested and later have him fined by a court - not for you to get a refund from Duane.

Look, I know you're upset. I think we all wanted a 4.6k Turret or 4.6k URSA. The cameras were devalued to $1000-$2000 rapidly, more rapidly than anyone expected. Similar to a Daewoo Car. But....

Look I saw one gent on here who was un-happy with his product, so he proceeded to 3D print a case and mount a huge heat-sink to the back of his sensor and do something constructive with his camera that he was unhappy with etc.. Constructive is better than calling in the wrath of the state, as their interests and your interests are not the same.

It still amazes me that there is even speculation that BM is developing something even better for the URSA. You cannot even get some repair parts for the Ursa anymore, the Ursa is dead plain and simple. Maybe BM will deliever on the 4.6k turret but that sure is not looking likely and there almost certainly will be nothing else.

I was just providing my viewpoint and my course of action.Do with it what you will.

Going to the NY AG will not get you anywhere happy as BM Proper is a foreign company, BM USA is in California, not in NY. Posting other supporting evidence in public domain only ruins your ability to take any other action. BM's layers will print them and argue against you using your own words - So posting more about what you personally decided to do only will harm you down the line, the only way it would help in a very remote possibility is if you were the 'Class' representative inside a class action - if granted standing - and those take years.

The other assumption you're making is that every URSA 4k owner is in the USA or even in the same state as you and that they are so dim to the matter at hand that they need consumer protection education. I think everyone here works or worked 'gigs', they at one point or another did have trouble getting their invoices paid, got sold a bill of materials, someone possibly took action, are either self proprietor, indy contractor or corporation etc..

The 4.6K URSA and 4.6 Turret and test footage and marketing of the 4K camera is moral hazard at best - it cannot be interpreted to be 'fraud', 'swindle', 'breach of contract' and the like.

So in order to initiate any action you would have to be able to demonstrate actual harm and real damages for failure to provide an upgrade to 4.6k. If there had been a contract between you and BM that said, by buying this camera we promise that we'll upgrade you to 4.6k by date X, then I'd see 'standing'. Otherwise the net result, if any from NY AG would be a big parking ticket to BM from New York State and you'd still be without a turret.

So the functional equivalent of what you were proposing to do, earlier is... If your friend Duane sold you a car without a CD player upgrade to it, is to call the police on Duane, have Duane arrested and later have him fined by a court - not for you to get a refund from Duane.

Look, I know you're upset. I think we all wanted a 4.6k Turret or 4.6k URSA. The cameras were devalued to $1000-$2000 rapidly, more rapidly than anyone expected. Similar to a Daewoo Car. But....

Look I saw one gent on here who was un-happy with his product, so he proceeded to 3D print a case and mount a huge heat-sink to the back of his sensor and do something constructive with his camera that he was unhappy with etc.. Constructive is better than calling in the wrath of the state, as their interests and your interests are not the same.

Gavin_c_clark wrote:Can we at least have 4:1 raw until the turret arrives?

Also, can we be advised by BM on the feature requests/development status for items that have been delineated below and several times in this forum. BM is known for listening to their customers. It is becoming clear that the URSA customers voices lack merit and the feature implementation is an unlikely outcome as the URSA owners await turret development - or it is discontinued.

We have been made to understand that sensor development is a complex, expensive and time consuming undertaking and frequent updates are just not possible. However, the last update from Grant was just over five months ago. I personally check this forum on a daily basis for updates on the turret - or any other requests that have been made for big URSA, but alas.

I believe I speak for many on the matters that have been raised in this particular thread and make a request for an update to:

I remember preordering the 4.6K turret in April 2015 right after NAB. When it didn't ship that July, I canceled immediately. It wasn't because I didn't believe it was not going to be made but because I was planning on selling the camera by that time.

I cannot believe this is still being discussed for 2018...and not only the 4.6K turret but any accessory for the big URSA, which in my opinion is clearly not going to be supported - with software or hardware - ever again.

Norbert Bielan wrote:I cannot believe this is still being discussed for 2018...and not only the 4.6K turret but any accessory for the big URSA, which in my opinion is clearly not going to be supported - with software or hardware - ever again.

Yup, just as it is pretty hard to accept that there are still people that believe in Santa Claus. But there it is.

The used big URSA cameras at cheap prices on eBay appear to have dried up.

Does this hint that people still want the big URSA and are hanging on to them like the old Chrysler Valiants after an initial panic dump by some owners?

With the camera seemingly discontinued, one wonders if BM sourced in store-bought components and built the camera around them or designed all PCBs from scratch. It would be convenient to know.

In the event of future breakdowns when BM itself may no longer support the camera, it might then be possible to find modules, sub-boards and replacement display/touch screens from third party or original suppliers.

It would seem that with the increasing passage of time, the 4.6K turret is a goner. There will have been released, several generations of chipsets for downstream processing of the image since the original URSA was designed.

There may remain no chipsets or sub-assemblies replaceable into the original URSA body, which are able to play with any new sensor which is developed.

Asok Kumar wrote:Grant pretty sir,we hope you will bring us as a new Year gift as the new 4.6 K turret

Your asking for TOO MUCH from BM.

Just bring the cam up to firmware 4. Lets start there, that will be a sign they are still developing for big URSA. They said it takes 3 months to get a sensor fabricated, looks like the last 2 sensors still are not working. But right now...as in TODAY, people using the cameras will benefit marginally from firmware 4. If they can't do that.... this will be a conversation we will be having next Christmas.

UMPro Studio features are welcome on big URSA. More exposure assist tools built into the camera, SSD support would be nice - not a big deal, CWB & Tint adjustment soooo many things they can do TODAY. Do those developments need the physical turret? What logical explanation (Excuse) is there to not work on updating the cam to 4? Zero.

Michael Odhiambo wrote:What logical explanation (Excuse) is there to not work on updating the cam to 4? Zero.

If a company (and this applies to all) would like people to forget about a camera as it moves on with its business and to newer products, it wouldn't provide this update to bring any unwanted attention back to the camera.

BM is known for providing so many updates and making its cameras better and better overtime - and existing URSA lovers would truly appreciate 4+ updates - but it really makes no business sense to do it anymore for this camera as it's completely discontinued and not selling anymore. The updates for everything else always came while the products were still in circulation.

Keep in mind, I LOVED the big URSA...but I also understand it could have been a failure in their early days of building cameras and they are simply trying to move on (not saying BM feels that way; just my opinion).

It's a bit like Apple, their latest is cuts off at late 2009, there's earlier Mac books with the same hardware that will run high Sierra, but Apple have deliberately cut them out. You can run a patch but Apple have stopped support. What's annoying here is that we've had no definitive words to that effect. The promise by grant that they're still working on the turret is still posted at the top of this forum FFS.

If they’ve abandoned it then they need to make this right with the consumers.

I purchased ‘the worlds first user upgradable digital film camera’

Under the consumer rights act of 2015 the goods must be as advertised, which they are not.

Annoyingly I would have to take the reseller to the small claims court if I wanted to pursue a legal resolve, because my contract is with them, and call it whining if you like but it’s not on that I as a consumer have to do this, and it’s not right that my reseller who has been very helpful every time I’ve bought from them gets dragged into this when they have done nothing wrong other than to sell a product in good faith.

If BM didn't make the 4k v2 turrets available for sale, a design they had working and in production, there is no reason to think they will ever produce 4.6k turrets for sale, even if they had a working design ready for production. There are people with PL turrets that want to get a 4K v2 EF turret, so it's not as if there is no market for Ursa turrets. It's just that BM is done with the Ursa.

I don't know why BM just won't fess up. Maybe they're embarrassed, maybe they're afraid. I don't think it is because they don't care. It must bother them a lot.

There should be more than one upgrade path for URSA owners. I believe URSA owners should receive a non time limited credit or voucher that is good for any product line that Black Magic sells. I am not satisfied with URSA Mini Pro upgrade there should be other options for me. It should be a significant discount for the amount of abuse that URSA customers have received.

It would be better if URSA's original plan could be fulfilled but ultimately it is about happy satisfied customers if Black Magic cannot deliver on original promises there should be alternatives that will make every customer happy.

The saddest thing is that according to black magic and Grant Petty himself the 4.6k being offered first to the Ursa owners was a reprentation of the appreciation they have for their loyal customers. So Ursa owners how appreciated do you feel?

Yes,if black magic design company,if it is a reputed company ,Who can keep their words,it should bring immediately the 4.6K turret,as they introduced Ursa4K by saying so,so I hope the legend Grant Pretty would do it soon

Why b*llsh*t about sensors etc when they say their boffins are working on it, to wait 4months for them to arrive then making it work - is a long game. Also having to put it into production and sorting out the firmware - v5 hopefully. Alongside all the other products they have/are releasing.

I don't think BMD would want to lose out to be the first to bring out interchangable sensors - as thats an accolade in itself esp when its a race against a major player.

Asok Kumar wrote:Iam not able to read the above link,please let me know the details!;I can't open the above link,is new turret coming for ursa,if anybody knows,please replyl

The link above is for a German website .. if you get on the website click on the top left where you see the German flag, you can click and change it to English .. pretty much what the site is saying is that they have the ursa 4.6k Pl in stock and ships out in 5 to 10 days..what Robert said above is not to get your hopes up as it may be a typo on the website. This must be confirmed first, before we all get excited.

I have called Marcotec and asked for more information. The woman on the phone told me that delivery schedules are set by the system automatically and she will ask someone in logistics if there is an error and will call me back.I'll keep you updated.

If a 4.6K big URSA has somehow escaped into the wild, it will be like the P76 Force Seven coupe, coveted and viewed with envious obsessive eyes. Not even the Holy Grail would come close. If you ever get your hands on it, don't go sending it back to BM support if there is a glitch or two but embrace any idiosyncracies. It otherwise might get disappeared quicker than a dropped egg.